S.C.VYAS,PRESIDENT - (1.) BY way of this appeal, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board has expressed grievance against District Forum, Raipur in connection with order dated 30.6.2008 in Complaint Case No. 239/2007, whereby the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 and also to continue electricity supply to service connection, which was provided earlier in the name of father of the complainant/respondent.
(2.) AS per the complaint of the respondent, Service Connection No. 1001269 was obtained by his father long back in the year 1975 and electricity supply was being provided through that connection. During intervening night of 17.9.2003 and 18.9.2003 somebody had committed theft of aluminium wire of the supply line of Electricity Board and so the supply disrupted. It was stated by the complainant that thereafter in spite of request, supply was not restored to his field and thereby Electricity Board had committed deficiency in service. Whereas, the written version of the Board was that the complainant was not a consumer of the Electricity Board and the supply connection was standing in the name of his father Taaplal Dhurandhar, who died 18 years back leaving huge dues. The complainant never made efforts to get connection in his name or to get his name mutated in place of his father. In these circumstances the supply was not restored.
(3.) WE have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused record of District Forum It is not in dispute that electricity supply connection stands in the name of Taaplal Dhurandhar. It has been admitted by learned Counsel for respondent that the said person Taaplal Dhurandhar had died long back in the year 1990 and thereafter complainant was enjoying the electricity through the supply connection, which was standing in the name of a dead person. It is also not in dispute that no application for change in name of the consumer or providing connection in the name of the complainant or mutation of his name in place of his father was ever made by the complainant. These facts show that the complainant was not a consumer of the appellants. He was simply paying sometimes charges of the electricity already used through the connection standing in the name of a dead person. We do not think that mere use of electricity through a connection in the name of a dead person can confirm the status of consumer on the complainant. We are of the firm view that complainant cannot be said to be consumer of the appellants, therefore, his complaint does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We also agree with the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for appellant that supply was disrupted in the year 2003. As per the case of complainant when supply line of aluminium wire was stolen by someone. If the complainant was having any grievance for making the complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 then he could have made such complaint within prescribed period of limitation. From the date of cause of action, no such complaint was made at that time. It may be possible that some applications have been made by the respondent to the appellants Electricity Board for restoration of supply line otherwise Board could not have taken the plea that complainant was not a consumer. Such applications are not sufficient to provide a fresh cause of action that complainant/respondent, who was not basically a consumer.;